September 28, 2024
HERE'S MY TAKE
Partisanship gets a bad rap—likely because the sausage-making of politics can turn one’s stomach. You might be surprised to read this from someone who co-founded a decidedly non-partisan think tank, but in its proper place, partisanship is actually a good thing. I saw this first hand this week as I joined fellow travellers around an Edmonton airport television to watch live coverage of MPs casting their votes on a Conservative confidence motion Wednesday afternoon, which could’ve brought down the Liberal government. It’s hard to gauge the general feeling of the crowd, but I did hear some middle-aged women disgustedly retort as they watched, “Hopefully now they can skip the partisan games and just get on with their job of governing.” I suspect that was fairly representative of the feelings of most.
Seeing little value in donning my “civics nerd” cap, I kept silent. But that didn’t stop me from thinking. I can understand the frustration with partisanship, but confidence motions in the House of Commons actually require it. It is the House of Commons, the place in Parliament where the common people “parle” (speak) in an effort to keep the government accountable. Parliament isn’t government. It’s what holds the government accountable in our democratic system. Without partisanship, that process breaks down.
The almost 28 million Canadians eligible to vote in a federal election bring their own, individual sets of priorities to sort through what constitutes governing for the common good. Political philosophies and moral codes are significant but often not decisive. Regional, occupational, or demographic interests influence voting priorities. As a former candidate for political office, I’ve knocked on more than a few doors of fellow church members only to find that they weren’t voting for me because their industry association had suggested the policies of a different political party aligned better with their economic interests. Anybody who has asked for a neighbour's vote will have, at some point, been surprised that alignment on nine things isn’t enough, when a single, tenth item of difference determines that neighbour’s ballot choice.
A democracy like Canada requires institutions to mediate our 28 million perspectives into a single governing practice. Strictly speaking, Canadian voters don’t elect governments. They elect parliaments. It is the leader of the largest party in Parliament (ordinarily) that the monarch invites to form a government. As long as the confidence of the House of Commons is maintained, the prime minister continues to govern.
In elections, multiple parties compete for our vote. Anyone who doesn’t like any of the parties on the ballot can run as an independent candidate. But what we often forget is that political parties don’t have any real power. Parties are private clubs belonging to their members, serving as marketing vehicles to elect Members of Parliament. Once elected, those members then claim their right to take a seat in the House of Commons and form a parliamentary caucus. Only a parliamentary caucus led by the recognized parliamentary leader has anything that resembles real power.
The party and its members are vital in determining who runs under their brand for the opportunity to win the local election to represent that electoral district in the House of Commons. But they’re legally irrelevant once a Parliament is in place. MPs can cross to a different party, vote differently than the rest of their party, and pretty well do as they please (within legal constraints and possibly bearing political costs). Once elected, MPs' real power comes when, as one of 338 Members of Parliament, they cast their vote either in favour or against the government.
(By the way—and this really deserves a column on its own—this is why proposals to have political party nomination processes governed by Elections Canada are fundamentally flawed. Whatever the failings of the current system, having the state hold political parties accountable puts the flow of accountability in the wrong direction. Political parties exist to elect MPs whose job it is to hold the government accountable. Yes, our political parties need fixing. But having the state undertake that task is doomed to be a “solution” that’s worse than the problem.)
The upshot remains that the most defining task of a Canadian MP is to stand up and be counted when the government’s command of the confidence of the people is put to the test, Belinda Stronach and Chuck Cadman are recognizable names among the thousands of MPs who’ve served us in the past few decades because of decisions they've made in the context of confidence votes. What made this week’s vote significant was the test of NDP MPs supporting their leader Jagmeet Singh to vote confidence in the government. They did so even after loudly breaking up their supply and confidence agreement with the government and declaring “The Liberals are too weak, too selfish, and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people.” It turns out the Bloc Québécois is willing to vote confidence in the government as long as the government hikes Old Age Security benefits by 10% along with committing to further protection for supply management in trade negotiations. It’s all tawdry but trading long-term principles for short-term priorities has a long history; the question is usually how many bowls of pottage are required in order for the birthright to be exchanged.
Admittedly when this all gets processed, along with the parliamentary theatrics designed to get the favourable clip going viral on social media, the cynical sentiments of those gathered around the airport TV monitor are understandable. For those with an idealistic sense that parties stand for certain principles, the willingness to publicly negotiate and sell their support for what seems in their immediate self-interest seems crude. Principles and policies are tools in the process of convincing others, but at its core, politics is about power. On my idealistic days, I hope and pray for leaders who will use their power in the pursuit of justice; it’s when our representatives are required to “stand up and be counted” that their real priorities are exposed. Come to whatever conclusion you want but the flip-flops on policy priorities (like the NDP’s stance on the carbon tax, which they were for until they were against) are only a manifestation of political self-interest in pursuit of power. It’s the political law of gravity at work.
Partisanship isn’t always pretty but it is the way Canadian democracy mediates our differences. Complex matters are ultimately reduced to a single binary choice. Voters get one 'X'. MPs vote with or against the government. All of the bluster and theatre, debate whether serious or absurd, is window dressing to get us to the core decisions. It’s not pretty and the way we are doing it these days is even less pretty than usual. But stripped to its essence, it is what politics has always been about—the exercise of power.
So, the notion that MPs should “skip the partisan games and get on with governing” misrepresents how the system works. While Parliament has an ongoing role in keeping a government accountable and in considering the legislation it proposes, the essential function of the House of Commons is to determine whether the government of the day retains the confidence of the people. When a government loses the confidence of the people (as expressed by the House) we typically get an election to elect a new parliament from which a new government can emerge.
Partisanship isn’t pretty. It involves marketing, evasiveness, and sales jobs in order to earn voters’ support. There are, however, few occasions when all of that gets stripped away and those who hold office stand up and are counted as to whether they do or do not have confidence in the government with a simple "yea" or "nay". And as ugly as these processes get, the partisan divide expressed civilly by members on opposite sides of the House, separated as they are by two swords' length, is a much better method of mediating political differences than any other system on offer. In its proper place, partisanship is both good and important.
WHAT I’M READING
So When's the Election?
Don’t expect a federal election before 2025, writes Ginny Roth in The Hub. That’s her conclusion as she reviews the logic of forcing an election from the perspective of each of the parties in the House of Commons. The analysis goes a different way on Peter Mansbridge’s podcast with its regular conversation involving former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore and former Trudeau insider Gerry Butts. In this week’s chat, they argue that the government is likely to fall in late October, sparking a December election, largely so that opposition leaders can run against Justin Trudeau before he can resign over the Christmas holidays. I’m with Yogi Berra on this one—“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” but if pressed, spring 2025 still seems to make the most sense if everyone continues to act in what seems to be their political self-interest.
What's the Cost?
Lydia Miljan is a leading Canadian academic who has made media bias her subject of study for several decades. Her Financial Post piece on Thursday provides a devastating critique of some of today’s Parliamentary Press Gallery. She notes that in the ongoing drama regarding the new social programs being demanded in exchange for Parliamentary support, less than 5% of CBC and CTV News coverage has focused on the cost. In most cases, the news coverage relies on government news releases and talking points with little analysis or critique.
Educational Pluralism
Cardus Senior Fellow Ashley Berner has a great piece on educational pluralism, arguing that US would do well to look at the model practised by 171 out of 204 systems tracked by UNESCO. Meanwhile, my colleagues Michael Van Pelt and Catharine Kavanagh have responded to an Alberta announcement of $8.6 billion in education capital funding, to be distributed between government and independent schools based on their proportions of students. They argue that all education is public education and that funding independent schools is an opportunity for “the real stuff of community where everyone pitches in and doesn’t wait for or blame the government for inaction.”
Social Capital and Civil Society
A paper delivered at a public policy school might not be everyone’s thing. Still, "Reviving Civil Society is Key to Good Government" provides some very valuable insights by combining the best of political philosophy regarding the role of civil society, some discussion on trust and how it is created, and a very readable historical narrative of recent trends in Canadian society.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
The Centre of Canadian Politics
The old joke is that the reason the Canadian crossed the road was to get to the middle. Recent polling by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that approximately one third of Canadians find themselves as “political orphans” with almost half perceiving that the Conservatives have moved to the right and 43% seeing the Liberals as having moved to the left.
It comes as no surprise then that Canadians are more likely to describe themselves as leaning left than leaning right. Still, there remains a significant constituency that prefers to think of itself as centrist whose votes the parties will be competing for whenever the next election happens.
TAKE IT TO-GO
A Swing and a Miss
I quoted Yogi Berra regarding the future earlier in this newsletter, but he also had wise words regarding the past since he has been credited with saying “It ain’t over 'til it’s over.” Tomorrow is the end of the baseball season for the Toronto Blue Jays, although it’s been over for a while in this disappointing season. I’m not sure there've been many "hit-’em-out-of-the-park" either baseball or wordplay events of late, but why should that stop me from stepping up to the plate and taking one last swing? My own baseball career involved more umpiring than playing and, as all baseball fans know, umpires are always right. The scorecard confirms that fact, the manager and fans’ protests notwithstanding. Admittedly, these days there is video review in Major League Baseball, but I’ll stay nostalgic for the days when fans were able to remind me that “there is only one ‘I’ in umpire." The most memorable heckle I recall receiving was: “Umpy, you are doing a good job considering you are without your seeing eye dog.” It was all in good fun and everyone finished the season with perspective.
The calls I made and the ones I missed, along with the Blue Jays 2024 season, have happened, are part of history, and are of comparatively little consequence in the grand scheme of things. I followed Yogi’s advice throughout: “When there is a fork in the road, take it.”
Right now, that fork brings us to the farewell for this week. Thanks for reading. I look forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday morning.